I'm not a Christian, can someone tell me why people decided to go lockstep with Paul's teachings and why there are so few denominations that reject his teachings? He just seems like some butthole that came by after the fact and added a bunch of unnecessary shit, and all because Peter shrugged and said that he was probably a decent guy.
 |
 |
|
what did he add?
asalaam alaykum btwe brother
KYS sand shit. Useful idiot for the israelites. Noahide cuck homosexual.
All the living apostles and disciples of jesus (which he talked to btw) were in full agreement with every single one of his teaching
I guess if Paul says so..
The epistles are not just paul, it's paul in correspondence with the apostles and disciples, have you ever opened a bible?
Pretty sure Paul is the only author in NT that say who he is
Astaghfirullah!!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_of_Peter
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_of_James
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistle_of_Jude
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_of_John
Paul must've been writing letters to imposters
Other way around lil' bro
>t. never read the Bible even once
There was a intense split between them and a debate took place at Antioch. Paul took the position that they should welcome gentiles and abandon israeli law, while James took the opposite position and Peter took the role of mediator. Afterwards Paul says James has become his enemy.
Basically this. Once you have state backing there has to be an official version.
It was was Peter and Paul that had the dispute. And it was resolved at the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15
Yeah, and the author of Acts were Luke, right?
The doctor who travelled together with Paul.
just think you should consider that Paul could've had an influence on what was written in Acts.
>The Council of Jerusalem
unbelievable LARP to legitimize later "Councils" post hoc.
t. bart ehrman
Paul is a prophet of God just like Moses and Jesus
Proof?
>Paul said so
Ok, sure buddy
The persons who confirm that Paul was chosen by God include Ananias, who was instructed by God to go and lay hands on Paul to restore his sight after his encounter on the road to Damascus (Acts 9:10-19); Barnabas, who vouched for Paul's conversion and ministry (Acts 9:26-27); and Peter, James, and John, who acknowledged Paul's apostleship and recognized his mission to the Gentiles (Galatians 2:6-10).
The Roman state and its successors persecuted and genocided all rival Christian sects.
If you reject the teachings of the church, are you really Christian at that point? What is important to understand is that Christ established a Church and it's through the Church that the world knows the Gospel. So if you reject the authority of the church and her teachings, then it's illogical to be Christian in the first place. Paul worked with the Apostles to build and establish the Church from her inception. So you either have to admit that Paul is truly who the Church says he is, or that Christianity is false.
So what I'm getting from from you is: Paul and his teachings are basically seen as fundamental irrevocable aspects of the church itself, and Christianity can't exist without him? That can't be true, aren't there a lot of Christians that just like to proclaim they follow what Jesus said and nothing else?
There are no uniquely pauline teachings, everything he taught was affirmed by the disciples before his conversion
How do you know?
How do you know anything?
Rejecting Paul is rejecting the Church. Not because Paul is the Church, but because the Church affirmed Paul.
What Jesus said was written down and preserved by a body of believers called a Church. If you reject the Tradition that brought you the Bible then why would you accept the Bible. It's logically inconsistent and arbitrary to do so.
Replace "Church" with "God the Holy Ghost" and you have a fuller* comprehension of the truth.
You're not wrong; but you're not wholly correct by omitting God the Holy Ghost specially witnessing God's Word.
The Church is merely a set of vessels.
It's not omission if it's implied by the title.
Remember when Jesus told the faithful (the Church) that he will send them the Spirit of truth and that "He will guide you to all truth" -John 16:13. The Church is indwelled by the Holy Spirit by nature of being the Church.
The Church, being Christ's body, is theanthropic, i.e. divine and human. This doctrine of synergy with God is one of the most foundational in Christianity and it scales from the individual to the whole Church. This is why we can confidently say, without contradiction, that the Bible is divinely inspired yet written by humans.
very true but if you say "Church" rather than "invisible body of Christ" one may be lead to believe you're referring to a physical institution of a parallel monarch who wears a funny hat who claims to lead "The Church"
Were the authority figures invisible? Were the sacraments invisible? Were the communities, Liturgy, rituals invisible?
The problem here is that you're holding a dialectical tension between material and spiritual as if they're somehow separate. Seems you've got a case of Plato brain.
The fact is, there is an invisible church and a physical church, but they are just as inseparable as Christ's humanity and Christ's divinity.
And no, I'm not referring to papism. I'm referring to the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church.
>as if they're somehow separate.
Material and Spiritual ARE separate, dingus.
How are this much of a dunce?
Do the saints in heaven have material bodies?
Does the Holy Ghost have a material body?
>God is a spirit
What did Jesus mean here?
The actual body of Christ (believers) is defined as not visible. The church is for "edification"; it's built up by the prophets and apostles; but if the Church is fully integrated physically and spiritually, then what ARE false brethren? wolves in sheep's clothing? How do you account for them? Physically they're there...
>The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
They are distinct, but not separate. Are you, at an ontological level, a body or a soul?
The Saints are embodied by being the organizing principles of those whom they are the patrons to.
The Holy Spirit is embodied in Christ, and by extension, the Church because the Church is the Body of Christ.
Here's more information because I don't have time to lay it out for you.
http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/inq_church.aspx
If you're calling into question the authenticity of what is written in Acts, then why wouldn't you do the same with the rest of it? I don't even understand how people can claim to be Christian if they don't believe the Bible to be without error.
kek how is it not a council?
The leaders of the Church (apostles and elders) gather to discuss an issue (v. 6), they come to an agreement and make a definitive doctrinal judgement (vv. 19-21), and they disseminate and implement the judgement to the various churches (vv. 22-29).
>I don't even understand how people can claim to be Christian if they don't believe the Bible to be without error.
it goes something like this: I believe that Christ is lord, but I don't believe that the Bible is without error
>I don't even understand how people can claim to be Christian if they don't believe the Bible to be without error.
"There's too much independent testimony for the resurrection for me to doubt it, but that doesn't mean every word of the apostles was infallible or that every early dogma can never be questioned"
Someone been watching Telosbound?
>why there are so few denominations that reject his teachings?
His letters are basically the earliest christian documents.
Paul was actually the first to use academic precision and apply the lenses of history and philosophy to Christ and the Church. Originally a israelite named Saul, he had access to the Apostles and Disciples during his study. He likely was the primary researcher for the Gospel of Luke and the Books of the Acts of the Apostles. His letters greatly enhanced the early Church’s ability to understand Jesus’s radical teachings. His place is well deserved, although I do wish the New Testament cannon included letters from Clement and others who well deserved greater recognition, but alas, it was not to be.
Turns out literally all (?) of Paul's letters the Church could get it's hands on happened to be divinely inspired and made it in as part of the Bible canon
What's the chances!
>He preached Christ
>After being a hater and allegedly having an encounter with Christ
>Very successfull at preaching Christ. Jesus basically chose him because he had the talent needed for this stage
>The other Apostles agreed with him after the initial suspicion
>He didn't add new dogma, but interpretations at most
>Gained nothing from it and was persecuted as much as the others
Basically, just read the first point again and consider Mark 9:40
"for whoever is not against us is for us".
It's funny, I was just reading 1 Corinthians 9 where Paul addressed this.
Do we have anything written by Paul, that isn't in the Bible?
Short of discovering documents that says otherwise there doesn't seem to be any indication the twelve disagreed with Paul. In what ways did Paul drastically change Jesus's message anyway?
I just think it's funny that Paul never talks about the empty tomb, and mentions Mary like twice
He doesn't mention a lot of stuff since he's advising people who already know about Jesus. He definitely believed Jesus rose from the dead though.
>But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.
>But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep.
1 Corinthians 15:12-20
>Paul's teachings
The only thing Paul taught was basic Christianity. There was nothing to be divisive about. Later Christian denominations that formed hundreds upon hundreds of years after the early church ended up splitting and factionalizing due to conflicts on how to interpret core doctrines, but these doctrines remained fundamentally the same even if there was disagreement on how they're interpreted; except for the case of the Great Schism where it had less to do with doctrine and more about politics, as well as the Assyrian church which also had nothing to do with doctrine at all but simply remained separate due to being under the direct control of Persia and not being able to be in open communion with Roman churches due to the animosity between the two nations.
>The only thing Paul taught was basic Christianity. There was nothing to be divisive about
He wanted people to be too submissive to the state.
Christ on the other hand said that you can't serve two masters in that regard.
Essentially the state must submit to the will of God if my interpretation is correct.
He said you can't serve mammon (money) and God. Nothing to do about submitting to the state. If anything, Jesus instructed his followers to submit to the state when he told them to continue paying the emperor's taxes. (mark 12:17)
Don't be moronic
So Romans 13 doesn't sound like poppywiener to you?
Jesus' early followers were mostly illiterate peasants
Paul was an intellectual who had studied under the most respected rabbis of the age, and the first intellectual to really join and try to codify the sect.
>Jesus' early followers were mostly illiterate peasants
No, he was around many city folk such as tax collectors.
Paul opened the floodgates for goys to become Christians.
Before that it was all about israeli Supremacy.
No, Jesus did it first with both the Great Commission and saying that we are supposed to be one flock.
>Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
Matthew 28:16-20
>I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd.
John 10:16
Were the Gospels written before or after Paul's massive influence on Christian doctrine?
They were written down after, but they were circulated before through oral tradition. I find it more likely this stuff was always there instead of some conspiracy about how Paul made up scripture to convert gentiles. Like, do you think it was some sort of /misc/brained israeli plot or something?
>Guy who never met Jesus, but wrote half the NT didn't add anything from himself
ok
Paul didn't write the Gospels though. His friend probably wrote one of them, but it wasn't the book of John or the book of Matthew, which I quoted.
Paul is a literal genius theologian. No one has produced a better understanding of Christianity theology than him even to this day. There's a good reason why Christ revealed himself to him on the Road to Damascus to convert him.
>I'm not a Christian and I hate Paul as much as Christ lol.
Yeah we know, moron, that's why we like him.
The cult was dying out and paul opened the cult up to gentiles and brought in big money.
It was already open to gentiles:
Dying according to whom?
Paul. He writes about the hardships faced by the Jerusalem sect and the need for Greek converts to send money to them.
The Ethiopian Eunuch. What exactly Yeshua and the Apostles supposedly thought about these individuals is debatable because of how little we actually know about such intricacies.
Christ appeared to Paul and and he became the greatest evangelist of all time.
People who whine about Saint Paul.
>Paul never met Christ unlike the apostles you need to listen only to them
do you listen to the apostles when they all accept saint paul?
>REEEEEEEEE
Do you listen to Paul when he claims the apostles accepted him?
Historically, do we see gentiles following Jesus during his ministry?
A few. The best one is a Roman officer who asks Jesus to heal his slave, and Jesus praises his faith because he told Jesus that he didn't need to come to his house, because he knew that if Jesus said his slave was healed, he would be healed.
Did his slave really get healed?
It says he did.
>When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help. “Lord,” he said, “my servant lies at home paralyzed, suffering terribly.”
>Jesus said to him, “Shall I come and heal him?”
>The centurion replied, “Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and that one, ‘Come,’ and he comes. I say to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.”
>When Jesus heard this, he was amazed and said to those following him, “Truly I tell you, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
>Then Jesus said to the centurion, “Go! Let it be done just as you believed it would.” And his servant was healed at that moment.
Matthew 8:5-13
This really happened in history?
Yes
12 And as He entered a village, ten men with leprosy who stood at a distance met Him; 13 and they raised their voices, saying, “Jesus, Master, have mercy on us!” 14 When He saw them, He said to them, “Go and show yourselves to the priests.” And as they were going, they were cleansed. 15 Now one of them, when he saw that he had been healed, turned back, glorifying God with a loud voice, 16 and he fell on his face at His feet, giving thanks to Him. And he was a Samaritan. 17 But Jesus responded and said, “Were there not ten cleansed? But the nine—where are they? 18 Was no one found who returned to give glory to God, except this foreigner?” 19 And He said to him, “Stand up and go; your faith has made you well.”